Random Politics & Religion #14

He's not going anywhere for the next four years unless he dies, give it up.

I would theorize that the "silent majority" is a real thing but it is not a hard and fast thing. The silent majority for the past eight years has been the rural poor and the things they believe. Correctly or incorrectly. And even then there are so many sub-categories in that "silent majority" that their reasons for voting Trump are all different, but they in the end they voted for the same guy and swung the electorate in his favor.

Xenophobia, racism, misogyny? Absolutely. Like it or not there are people that have those beliefs and vote with them.

Evangelicals? Yep.

People who are actually pretty liberal but are sick and tired of being broke and not having a job without leaving everything they've ever known to move to a city life they don't know, want, or like? Mmmhmm.

People who even actually believe climate change is real and that oil/coal extraction hurt the environment, but have to set aside that unfortunate fact because they need a *** job or there kid doesn't eat? They're certainly out there. (That's a good portion of my family back home, for the record.)

And plenty of other different instances that all pointed to the same thing: "We don't like Trump, but we're voting for him."

And then you have the people more represented on these forums, the people who are, by and large, lucky enough to be able to vote ideologically based on economic or social beliefs because we're in an okay spot financially.

But there's a hierarchy to things. First you've gotta eat and put a roof over your head, then you can worry about the rest. And we're a big country with a lot of people in a lot of different situations.

And I won't be surprised if next time round the silent majority isn't the same group of folks swaying the election.

Not inaccurate, but also half the story.

Proof: CJ.

Here's the thing about those tweets: they're a major part of the left's problem. Too many of them live in an echo chamber safe space and aren't taking into account a lot of people with valid beliefs that simply don't align with theirs. They only see the portion of Trump voters who actually are deplorable and lump every single Trump supporter in with them.

They also have a problem understanding how certain issues actually effect peoples livelihoods. Climate change is something we should strive for but what are you doing for the countless people losing their jobs to better the climate? Sure there may be new jobs created but are we certain those new jobs are going to those people who will lose theirs? No one considers this.

We want a carbon Tax, we want to end the coal business, we want gun control, we want to increase taxes on the rich, we want to nationally raise minimum wage. All of these wants have huge negative impact on the middle class and all of the blue collar workers. People far left don't realize this nor do they even understand that they need to realize this. They are so caught up in the "I'm right, your wrong" attitude that they never consider the people.


I'm left leaning but I'd like to think that I understand peoples struggle for jobs and how some decisions can completely remove their jobs and that ***is scary when you have a wife and kids to provide for.

Imma assume you worded that wrong lol.

Yeah, I chuckled a little but I knew what he meant. XD

Now I think we need to change the Climate so the middle east / Persian gulf areas become unlivable then fix it from there.

As the song says.

"I got bills to pay, I got mouths to feed, and there ain't nothin' in this world for free."

Now all we have to do is wait for them to vote....

<insert passage of vast ammounts of time here >

Truthfully though, yea I meant that we should strive to fix the issues causing climate change.

I often type very fast and never really proof read :/

DAMMIT ROOKS.

And I'm telling you of that "majority" million of il-legals are in there and thus invalidate the assertion.

Social Security and medicade/medicare say differently.

One theory was:
The young are usually less risk adverse.
As you get older you are more risk adverse.

However, this (and the theory you and others are throwing out) should be re-examined because both Brexit and Trump was a vote for change, a risk that is very difficult to estimate (especially in Brexit case).

In both of those elections older voters voted for risk.

Frankly, generalizing based on age is a very poor measurement.

I'm saying of the millions of people here illegitimatey a few million of them voted, and it's highly doubtful that they voted for the guy that wants them all to leave.

Why do I think they voted? Because there's nothing of significance standing in their way to do so.

Maybe they didn't vote for the risk itself, but just to become heard. Maybe they didn't like being ignored by those who claim to be "enlightened" and demand that we fall in line or be ostracized to oblivion. Maybe they don't like the direction the country is going and are willing to take the risk to make their lives better, even when they are so risk-adverse that it goes against their nature, but they needed change because staying "on course" would mean that their, along with everyone else's, way of life will continue to deteriorate.

alex jones

snopes

What prevented them from doing so?

Remember when we were Young and Restless...*coma fantasy intensifies*

Maybe that is/was their belief.

That doesn't change the fact that those voters who were older voted for risk or "change" and the young voted in a risk adverse manner.

That goes against the principle that as you age you are more risk adverse.

Hillary voters it ain't over till the fat lady sings: